The challenges for creating blended and flipped learning experiences

The results show that the creation of the blended environment was perceived by participants as having more challenges than the creation of the flipped environment. Deciding on the best use of online and facilitated session spaces, how to develop engaging online activities, and having knowledge of blended learning tools and platforms were all considered challenges in the area of blended learning design. For creating flipped environments, the main challenges were deciding on the best use of online and facilitated session spaces, as well as having sufficient time to create the sessions and activities.

Deciding on the best use of online and face-to-face spaces was considered the biggest challenge when creating blended environments, with 72% of participants identifying this as a challenge. It was also considered a challenge when creating flipped environments for 73% of participants. Qualitative results from both the questionnaire and the interviews that offer deeper insight into this finding are mainly around balance. As already mentioned, these blended, flipped courses were designed for the majority of the learning and teaching to happen online. Research supports the claim that the complexity of designing for two learning spaces, including establishing what is appropriate for each space and connecting them pedagogically to achieve a unified whole can be challenging, especially for those new to these environments (Kaleta et al., 2006). As previously discussed, while these staff were experienced teachers in a face-to-face environment, designing for online and blended learning was relatively new for the majority of participants in this study.

One of the challenges identified in the qualitative data from the questionnaire was getting a balance between building in some structure and flow to the learning process while also leaving enough space and flexibility for the learner to develop their skills. There is literature which expresses the challenge and importance of this in blended course design by comparing it to architectural design: “a well-designed building allows free movement around the rooms but it makes it easy for people to navigate and not get lost” (City and Guilds Kineo, 2014, p. 11). While the courses that were reviewed as part of the research appeared to have clear navigation, there was clearly some concern around the amount of free movement within some of the courses. Since this study, Institute X has developed some professional development materials to outline standard for Moodle design. Consideration and inclusion of these standards, along with conversations at programme and course level will help to achieve a balance between structure and flow, and consistency and flexibility.

Another decision that proved challenging was around the introduction of new ideas, topics or concepts. One participant explained how they felt that a new topic sometimes needed to be explained/explored with students in a face-to-face class rather than in the online component. This view is in contrast with research that

vocabulary and procedures (Hosler, 2016). It was also in contrast to Institute X’s description of how the flipped classroom is used to expose new material to students outside of class. The participants in this study were clearly responsible for making critical decisions as they planned for their online and face-to-face spaces. McShane (2004) claims that the decisions that teachers, as course designers, make when creating their blended courses have a significant impact on their teaching role and strategies (McShane, 2004). Talking through these decisions with others, rather than working in isolation could be helpful here, and it was interesting to see that collaborating with others in the re(design) of the course was not considered a challenge by the majority of participants, implying that working with others in the creation of these blended, flipped courses was helpful for most. Therefore, consideration could be given in future to working in teams to co-create blended and flipped spaces.

The findings showed that the development of engaging online activities were perceived to be the joint-second biggest challenge when creating blended learning environments, as identified by 67% of participants. As the staff involved in this study were largely new to the area of online course design, it is understandable that this was a demanding area. Creating time and opportunities for professional development in this area will allow for the necessary up-skilling going forward.

A review of several courses, which was undertaken as part of the study during the interview phase showed that these courses had carefully considered pedagogy. Moodle (Institute X’s learning management system) had been used in these courses to promote “learning by doing”, with the inclusion of online activities and collaboration, with the use of group work and peer feedback. There was evidence of the use of scaffolding within the courses, the use of online interactive activities that aimed to put the learner at the centre of their learning and the presence of communities of enquiry that existed through the use of online tools such as forums and wikis. These considered elements of the courses in no way reflected poor pedagogical approaches that have been identified in some research studies. The concern in the literature around the centralised and closed Learning Management Systems used in many tertiary institutions, which promote a didactic approach to

learning and teaching (McLoughlin & Lee, 2010; Holland Judge, 2013) was not evidenced in this research study. Neither were learners simply directed to a bank of online resources (Yuen, 2011) or subjected to lecture-format recordings (Lee, McLoughlin and Chan, 2008). There was evidence, however, of the use of interactive communications that are available through web 2.0 technologies (Moran, Seaman & Tinti-Kane, 2012).

While there had clearly been good planning and thought put into the creation of the online activities for these blended, flipped courses, there was concern from two of the interviewees that they were, perhaps, asking too much from students from the online component. One interviewee reported that her students were not engaging in the online activities because, in her view, the activities needed simplifying. Another interviewee reported a similar thing, saying that she thought it would be better to focus on the cognitive skills of remembering and understanding in the online activities. As both of these participants were referring to first-year level undergraduate courses, students would most likely be new to the blended, flipped environment in which they were studying and need scaffolded support and guidance. While developing an online community is reported in the literature to be key in engaging students (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Conole & Alevizo, 2010; Ruben, Fernandes & Avgerinou, 2013, it is claimed that the promotion of meaningful discussion and peer critique is dependent on the design of the task, and the ability of the teacher to promote and facilitate a culture among learners of valuing and contributing to peer critique (Bennett et al., 2012). It is also claimed that one of the key challenges for designing engaging, pedagogically sound activities for blended learning is in creating authentic or what Herrington, Reeves & Oliver (2009) call “ill- defined problems”. An absence of these is reported to cause students to produce descriptive and surface level knowledge (Häkkinen & Hämäläinen, 2012). By identifying the development of engaging online activities as a challenge indicates that participants from this research study felt the need for up-skilling in this area. Therefore, in order for Institute X to transform learning in their blended courses, there needs to be a strong focus on developing the skills to create pedagogically sound and relevant engaging online activities.

Knowing which tools and platforms to use when creating blended learning environments was perceived by staff to be the joint-second biggest challenge along with creating engaging online experiences. In the blended, flipped courses being developed in this research, teams consisted of an eLearning support person to help with the choice of tools and platforms during the course development. One course writer was encouraged to use MyPortfolio in her new course. She had no previous experience of using this platform and expressed how difficult it was when creating her course to plan for use of a platform that she did not know. In this case, the platform was acting as a barrier rather than enabler to her course development, which could also have implications for her facilitation of the course. It is, once again, worth noting that the majority of staff were new to online and blended learning environments and, as Benson, Anderson & Ooms (2011) found in their study, could feel overwhelmed by the variety of resources. The fact that knowledge of tools and platforms was perceived by 67% of staff as a challenge indicates that the majority of staff found it difficult to make decisions on tools and platforms during course creation. Although for these developments, there was an e-developer in the team whose overall responsibility was to deal with the tools and platforms, this will not always be the case. Gerbic (2011) points out that staff are increasingly expected to take on more of a technological role while Arbaugh (2008) argues teachers will continue to encounter the challenge of how to effectively integrate technology into their course developments and teaching practices. These points are very relevant to Institute X. Insufficient support, along with the necessity of acquiring new teaching and technology skills, have been identified as risks associated with the development of blended learning courses (Vaughan, 2007) and therefore something which Institute X needs to build into the transformative process.

The findings show that, for creating flipped learning environments, staff found the two biggest challenges to be deciding on the best use of online and facilitated session spaces along with a lack of time to create flipped courses/sessions/activities. Both of these were considered a challenge by 73% of participants.

Possible reasons for a lack of time being identified as a major challenge are around workload, tight time frames and lack of experience. As the majority of study hours

for these new blended, flipped courses were online, there was a lot of work to do to develop the online activities. As well as this, these courses were being developed to a very tight time-frame meaning there was a lot to do in a limited time. Also, as these courses were being produced as a collaborative effort, there was more time needed to schedule meetings, have conversations and reach agreements on important issues. The fact that the course writers were new to this blended, flipped model meant that they needed time to become accustomed to new ways of doing things. Working with new pedagogies as well as new technologies is a process.

The literature on blended and flipped learning is in line with the finding that time constraints as perceived as a major challenge. The development of online-based activities are perceived as time-consuming (Charles and Anthony 2007) and the amount of work involved, even when given support by e-developers, can be underestimated by those staff who are new to blended learning (Ooms et al. 2008). Furthermore, the amount of time it takes to create course content or reformat existing content for a flipped learning model of learning is considerable (Bart, 2013).

5.4.2 Summary of the challenges for creating blended and flipped